Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 29/911,389

DROP WIRE CLAMP

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Sep 01, 2023
Examiner
KO, ELIZABETH SUN
Art Unit
2924
Tech Center
2900
Assignee
Allied Bolt, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
98%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 98% — above average
98%
Career Allow Rate
197 granted / 202 resolved
+37.5% vs TC avg
Minimal -1% lift
Without
With
+-1.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
1 currently pending
Career history
203
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
2.5%
-37.5% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
79.2%
+39.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 202 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Detailed Action Information Disclosure Statement The applicant listed three references in the Office Actions and Responses in Co-Pending US Patent applications however, the corresponding documents are not filed in the instant application. The examiner has not considered the three references:17/117719 Non-Final Action filed on 5/24/2023 17/117719 Response to Restriction Requirement filed on 2/13/202317/117719 Restriction Requirement filed on 12/23/2022 Drawing Objection The drawings are objected to because they are not drawn consistently between the figures. Specifically, FIGS. 3-4 are objected to because there are portions in the figures that are drawn with solid lines. However, in corresponding views, the portions are drawn in broken lines. See images below. The examiner suggests amending the figures to be drawn consistently in each view. PNG media_image1.png 668 988 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 632 678 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 308 721 media_image3.png Greyscale See the image below of FIG. 9 used here as an example of FIGS. 9-10 and 15-16. FIGS. 9-10 and 15-16 are objected to because they are drawn with additional character indicia. Since there is only one assembled figure on each sheet, the bracket should be removed from the drawings. 35 CFR 1.84(h)(1) The examiner suggests removing the bracket specifically from FIGS. 9-10 and 15-16. PNG media_image4.png 731 1056 media_image4.png Greyscale See the image below of FIG. 1 used here as an example for the rest of the drawings. There are several areas in the broken line section that are drawn with longer dashes that connect to adjacent broken lines that are objected to for clarity. The broken lines should clearly be drawn in dashed lines. The examiner suggests amending the broken lines to remove areas from the broken line portions. PNG media_image5.png 705 876 media_image5.png Greyscale See replacement drawing requirements in the rejection listed below. Specification Objection The broken line statement is objected to because it does not accurately describe all of the broken lines used in the drawings. Specifically, FIGS. 1-16 is shown with portions drawn in broken lines, however, in FIGS. 17-18, the drawings are drawn with an additional broken lines depicting the cable being used with Drop Wire Clamp. Therefore, the broken lines should be amended to read:--The broken lines in the drawings depict portions of the Drop Wire Clamp that form no part of the claimed design. The additional broken lines in FIGS. 17-18 depict environmental subject matter that form no part thereof. -- Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112 The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and (b), as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which inventor regards as the invention. The claim is indefinite and not enabled because the precise appearance of the claim cannot be determined for the following reasons: There are areas of the figures that are indefinite and non-enabled because the scope of the claimed design cannot be understood without conjecture. Specifically, the end portions of the Drop Wire Clamp are questioned because it has both solid claimed lines and broken lines adjacent to each other. The transitions between solid lines to broken lines are ambiguous because the empty space in between the solid lines to broken lines are unclear whether they are claimed or unclaimed. Because no clear boundaries are shown on the disclosure of the design, a question arises as to exactly what is being claimed, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. See images below. PNG media_image6.png 729 1520 media_image6.png Greyscale Due to these ambiguities in the disclosure, the scope of protection sought by the claim cannot be determined and therefore the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventors regard as the invention and enable a designer of ordinary skill to reproduce the shape and appearance of the claimed design. Note that when a boundary line is introduced via amendment or in a continuation application, the introduction of the boundary line must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or for applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). If inventor chooses to amend the drawings and/or specification, the amendment must meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). There must be antecedent basis in the original filing to support any changes made to the disclosure. If inventor chooses to exclude portions of the article of manufacture from the claim by converting those portions of the article to broken lines, the amendment must meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). It must be apparent that inventor was in possession of the amended design at the time of original filing. When preparing new or replacement drawings, avoid introducing new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). If corrected drawings are submitted in response to this Office action, they must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d). Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing dale of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as amended. If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as "Annotated Sheet") including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that includes an explanation of the change to the drawings. In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the amended drawing figure(s), inventor is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as "Annotated Sheet" and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Conclusion The claimed design is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b). A response is required in reply to the Office Action to avoid abandonment of the application. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH S KO whose telephone number is (571)272-6108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 5:00 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin M Jonaitis can be reached at 571-270-5150. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. ELIZABETH S KO Examiner Art Unit 2920 /JUSTIN M JONAITIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2924
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 01, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent D1104719
Cable clip
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent D1103719
Plant Clip
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent D1103721
Nine-tooth rake
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent D1103739
Hinge
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Patent D1103729
Clamp
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
98%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (-1.4%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 202 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month